New Camaro Is Now Officially A Go

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, Harry in Montreal wrote:
>
> > NO merit? well, how else are you going to compare the reliability of
> > various brands? wouldnt it be reasonable to start with an independent
> > Non-profit entity that surveys people who own the cars? granted taht CR
> > is not perfect,
>
> CR's self selecting surveys and testing methods leave a lot to be
> desired. As far as valid science and engineering is concerned much of
> what they do results in garbage for data. The way they tested the Samurai
> is key to their slip shod and sloppy methods that can be influenced by
> their own biases.

respectfully, the biases that you are talking about dont really jump
off the page to me at all. they seem to rate certain domestic and
foreign brands poorly, and sometimes only some models. i do not think
they have a favorable japanese/german bias - they seem to dislike
benzes and mitsubishis, while they like TMs and HMCs. the poorer cars
that i have owned have been labeled by CR as-such, while the better
cars reflected the same ratings. the samurai - i have no idea what
they rated-at, but i know they tended to tip real easy, nice
reference!. contrary to what you say about CR liking the samurai
once-upon a time, CR rated the Mitsu Montero as Unacceptable for a
similar tipping problem. in sum, based on what i have owned, i have
found that the cars that they label as reliable, turn out to be.

anyway, many people dislike CR - i dont really care. Brent, seriously,
how do you interpret JD power's conclusion with respect to the quality
of the big 460 Lexus? is it a fluke that it jives with CRs opinion? or
is it just a similar bias? how about the fact that nearly every month
lexus outpaces their sales targets while lincolns slip down into the
red-minuses? its sad. dont get me wrong, i want to get a new Camaro or
Mustang GT, but my last Camaro was so bad i would not do it to myself
again! they have to make Q job one! H

In article . com>, Harry in Montreal wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article .com>, Harry in Montreal wrote:
>>
>> > NO merit? well, how else are you going to compare the reliability of
>> > various brands? wouldnt it be reasonable to start with an independent
>> > Non-profit entity that surveys people who own the cars? granted taht CR
>> > is not perfect,
>>
>> CR's self selecting surveys and testing methods leave a lot to be
>> desired. As far as valid science and engineering is concerned much of
>> what they do results in garbage for data. The way they tested the Samurai
>> is key to their slip shod and sloppy methods that can be influenced by
>> their own biases.
>
> respectfully, the biases that you are talking about dont really jump
> off the page to me at all. they seem to rate certain domestic and
> foreign brands poorly, and sometimes only some models. i do not think
> they have a favorable japanese/german bias - they seem to dislike
> benzes and mitsubishis, while they like TMs and HMCs. the poorer cars
> that i have owned have been labeled by CR as-such, while the better
> cars reflected the same ratings. the samurai - i have no idea what
> they rated-at, but i know they tended to tip real easy, nice
> reference!. contrary to what you say about CR liking the samurai
> once-upon a time, CR rated the Mitsu Montero as Unacceptable for a
> similar tipping problem. in sum, based on what i have owned, i have
> found that the cars that they label as reliable, turn out to be.

They tip when made to tip and the test drivers try again and again and
again to make it happen. CR's test from an engineering pov is bunk as
well.

> anyway, many people dislike CR - i dont really care. Brent, seriously,
> how do you interpret JD power's conclusion with respect to the quality
> of the big 460 Lexus? is it a fluke that it jives with CRs opinion? or
> is it just a similar bias? how about the fact that nearly every month
> lexus outpaces their sales targets while lincolns slip down into the
> red-minuses? its sad. dont get me wrong, i want to get a new Camaro or
> Mustang GT, but my last Camaro was so bad i would not do it to myself
> again! they have to make Q job one! H

If you want to believe CR, have at it. It's been covered to death in
rec.autos.driving in the last decade. You can look up the threads on
google groups if you must. Trying to convince a CR true believer that
self selecting surveys, etc aren't accurate is like arguing with a wall.
BTW, justifying a self selected survey because it came out like another
self selected survey I don't think has any merit.

Brent P wrote:
> In article . com>, Harry in Montreal wrote:

>
> They tip when made to tip and the test drivers try again and again and
> again to make it happen. CR's test from an engineering pov is bunk as
> well.
>
> If you want to believe CR, have at it. It's been covered to death in
> rec.autos.driving in the last decade. You can look up the threads on
> google groups if you must. Trying to convince a CR true believer that
> self selecting surveys, etc aren't accurate is like arguing with a wall.
> BTW, justifying a self selected survey because it came out like another
> self selected survey I don't think has any merit.

Brent, i agree that we disagree - but i am not a wall. being slighly
educated, you will have to work a bit to pursuade why CR's testing is
misleading or designed to produce inaccurate conclusions. Please define
what you mean by 'self directed' and tell me why giving individuals who
have qualified characteristics the opportunity to judge the
effectiveness of a product, is invalid. i suppose that you must
disagree, or deem invalid, with just about any survey or testing method
(medical products for ex.) involving a sample of the population which
is prescreened? regardless, someone like myself uses CR gathered
information to get a preliminary idea of which products that they deem
are superior. THis is the only purpose for their information. With
respect to reliabiliy, after having bought some poor cars myself, i
find their reviews to be reasonable and quite accurate. i have been
posting to newsgroups for years and years - and they are a great
resource. but, i dont think that they are a substitute for CR. they
compliment each other. Harry in montreal

In article .com>, Harry in Montreal wrote:

> Brent, i agree that we disagree - but i am not a wall. being slighly
> educated, you will have to work a bit to pursuade why CR's testing is
> misleading or designed to produce inaccurate conclusions.

Previous CR true believers have been walls. And I have no desire to go
over it again. It's all in google groups, rec.autos.driving. Most
threads involve dr. lloyd parker.

> Please define
> what you mean by 'self directed'

self selected.

If you don't even know what that means, it's going to be far too
aggrivating for me to continue this thread. Basically it means people
decide on their own wether to answer. It can skew the data in different
directions. That's why CR gets the same car with different badges on it
that came out of the same factory with vastly different ratings. There's
also a lot of perceptions involved.

> are superior. THis is the only purpose for their information. With
> respect to reliabiliy, after having bought some poor cars myself, i
> find their reviews to be reasonable and quite accurate.

I've found their tests poorly thought out and done to achieve desired
results.

> i have been
> posting to newsgroups for years and years - and they are a great
> resource. but, i dont think that they are a substitute for CR. they
> compliment each other.

I've just been in product design and development for the last decade,
what the hell would I know about product testing?

Brent P wrote:

> self selected.
>
> If you don't even know what that means, it's going to be far too
> aggrivating for me to continue this thread. Basically it means people
> decide on their own wether to answer. It can skew the data in different
> directions. That's why CR gets the same car with different badges on it
> that came out of the same factory with vastly different ratings. There's
> also a lot of perceptions involved.

Brent, have you compared the Vibe and the Matrix on CR? Same car, same
ratings. i guess you would have to give me an actual example to
persuade me.

>
> I've found their tests poorly thought out and done to achieve desired
> results.

they may be poor, or maybe not. i have not audited them - but i know
one thing: GM and FoMoCo seem to perform very lousy at the same tests,
while Toyotas score well at the (assumed) same test. also, this woudl
include offset crash tests, and other safety tests- which i think are
the most important results to consider when buying a car. I suppose
that in the GM and Ford design studios they make the same case as you
do, which is why their products are so far behind in Q and technology.
>
> I've just been in product design and development for the last decade,
> what the hell would I know about product testing?

Brent, you may be an amazing product designer, but i have been a
consumer that has been blowing a nice healthy chunk of disposable
income for a while - and i can tell you that regardless of what you
think of CR, you cannot deny that japanese automakers are building
better Quality products than GM and Ford. this was my orignial point...
i am not alone. check the stock price of TM on NYSE versus GM and Ford.
notice how the big 3 regularly discount their cars, while TM and HMC do
not really have to. further, they still do not ever really offer
zero-percent until they are selling end-of-yr models. as a product
designer, i would be very surprised if you compared (say) a 2002 camaro
z28 (the last yr, and assumed best effort to date) to a Celica of the
same year. While the Z is a wonderful car, the quality and design is a
complete joke. the bump on the passenger side floor, the distortion in
the raked windshield, 1to4 shift T-56 transmission. these cars
depreciated so fast they almost melted down the sewer (again, i bought
one for $40k cdn). So, Brent, as a professional product designer and
developer - would you say that the quality of materials and design of a
TM and a GM product are equal (ignoring CR of course)? LMK, harry

In article . com>, Harry in Montreal wrote:

> Brent, have you compared the Vibe and the Matrix on CR? Same car, same
> ratings. i guess you would have to give me an actual example to
> persuade me.

Previously mentioned Nova. I stopped reading CR many years ago.

>> I've found their tests poorly thought out and done to achieve desired
>> results.

> they may be poor, or maybe not. i have not audited them

You don't have to. just read the articles. Their lack of even disclosing
the test parameters is a problem. At least C&D had the guts to post an
article about how they test cars. Their test was like an engineering
experiment. CR's seem rather half-baked.

>> I've just been in product design and development for the last decade,
>> what the hell would I know about product testing?

> Brent, you may be an amazing product designer, but i have been a
> consumer that has been blowing a nice healthy chunk of disposable
> income for a while - and i can tell you that regardless of what you
> think of CR, you cannot deny that japanese automakers are building
> better Quality products than GM and Ford.

I haven't offered any opinion on that.

> this was my orignial point...
> i am not alone. check the stock price of TM on NYSE versus GM and Ford.

Product quality and stock price may or may not be related. There have
been a great number of successful and profitable companies that made
junk.

> notice how the big 3 regularly discount their cars, while TM and HMC do
> not really have to. further, they still do not ever really offer
> zero-percent until they are selling end-of-yr models.

Ford and GM are run by marketeers and bean counters. Marketeers are about
'features' and 'price'. (features include such things as performance
numbers). Ford however has managed better at mitigating the negative
effects than GM has.

> as a product
> designer, i would be very surprised if you compared (say) a 2002 camaro
> z28 (the last yr, and assumed best effort to date) to a Celica of the
> same year. While the Z is a wonderful car, the quality and design is a
> complete joke.

Thinly veiled insults are not winning you any points.

> the bump on the passenger side floor, the distortion in
> the raked windshield, 1to4 shift T-56 transmission. these cars
> depreciated so fast they almost melted down the sewer (again, i bought
> one for $40k cdn).

I think the last F-body was typical piece of **** GM car. The kind of
product that goes out the door when the company cares about everything
but the product. It's a marketeer's product, it was about price point and
numbers. I've had to work on projects that were forced to be **** because
of such idiotic corporate nonsense so I think I have a bit of a feeling
how their engineers felt.

> So, Brent, as a professional product designer and
> developer - would you say that the quality of materials and design of a
> TM and a GM product are equal (ignoring CR of course)? LMK, harry

The japanese makes products bore me as much as GM's do. However at least
they aren't total crap like GM's product. GM is capable of making good
product, they just don't because of their enormous union labor costs that
in turn have to be taken out of the product itself to compete and general
idiotcy from their executive and marketing. The later being far more the
problem than the former. But the former cannot be ignored. It is a legacy
of confrontational labor practices and treating workers poorly decades
ago. Now both sides are likely to lose.

And to ridicule using what I brought in to counter to trump your argument
by authority, is just sour grapes.

Brent P wrote:

> Previously mentioned Nova. I stopped reading CR many years ago.

Dont take this to be too agressive or offensive, but you are making
bold comments on the validity of the testing methods used in a magazine
that you do not read.

>
> You don't have to. just read the articles. Their lack of even disclosing
> the test parameters is a problem. At least C&D had the guts to post an
> article about how they test cars. Their test was like an engineering
> experiment. CR's seem rather half-baked.

But you have not read the CR mag in years (per above) - so i guess you
missed the issues with the articles that discuss the testing methods.
let me know, and i can email them to you if you wish.

> Product quality and stock price may or may not be related. There have
> been a great number of successful and profitable companies that made
> junk.

i completely agree with you here. but, in hte specific case of the US
auto industry - people are not buying garbage in the numbers that they
used to, as they have better quality alternatives. in sum,
F and GM is losing the repeat customer due to quality. Like me

>
> Ford and GM are run by marketeers and bean counters. Marketeers are about
> 'features' and 'price'. (features include such things as performance
> numbers). Ford however has managed better at mitigating the negative
> effects than GM has.

I dont know about that. have you contemplated buying an Explorer
recently? how about crown vic with cruise control?

>
> Thinly veiled insults are not winning you any points.

thinly veiled? give me an example otherwise. give me a long list to
make sure it is not "thinly veiled".

>
> > the bump on the passenger side floor, the distortion in
> > the raked windshield, 1to4 shift T-56 transmission. these cars
> > depreciated so fast they almost melted down the sewer (again, i bought
> > one for $40k cdn).
>
> I think the last F-body was typical piece of **** GM car. The kind of
> product that goes out the door when the company cares about everything
> but the product. It's a marketeer's product, it was about price point and
> numbers. I've had to work on projects that were forced to be **** because
> of such idiotic corporate nonsense so I think I have a bit of a feeling
> how their engineers felt.

agreed.

> The japanese makes products bore me as much as GM's do. However at least
> they aren't total crap like GM's product. GM is capable of making good
> product, they just don't because of their enormous union labor costs that
> in turn have to be taken out of the product itself to compete and general
> idiotcy from their executive and marketing. The later being far more the
> problem than the former. But the former cannot be ignored. It is a legacy
> of confrontational labor practices and treating workers poorly decades
> ago. Now both sides are likely to lose.

i totally agree.

>
> And to ridicule using what I brought in to counter to trump your argument
> by authority, is just sour grapes.

i do not really understand your phrase, but it seems that we agree that
Japanese products are better than US - which is my original point.
since we agree, I do not see how "sour grapes" comes into your
argument. i just like CR and you dont - i do not really care if you do
not use it, or if you do not respect the publication as a whole - but,
they seem to have the same overall impression of J and US vehicles taht
we both do.

Harry in mtl

In article .com>, Harry in Montreal wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> Previously mentioned Nova. I stopped reading CR many years ago.
>
> Dont take this to be too agressive or offensive, but you are making
> bold comments on the validity of the testing methods used in a magazine
> that you do not read.

stopped reading. Stopped reading for a damn good reason. I suppose you
continue reading publications you've found to be poor?

>> You don't have to. just read the articles. Their lack of even disclosing
>> the test parameters is a problem. At least C&D had the guts to post an
>> article about how they test cars. Their test was like an engineering
>> experiment. CR's seem rather half-baked.

> But you have not read the CR mag in years (per above) - so i guess you
> missed the issues with the articles that discuss the testing methods.
> let me know, and i can email them to you if you wish.

There is no reason to believe they have changed. Look. I don't feel like
arguing this CR crap yet again. I don't have the time nor patience to
bring you up from zero on the subject. Use google groups, there are tons
of threads on it.

>> Product quality and stock price may or may not be related. There have
>> been a great number of successful and profitable companies that made
>> junk.

> i completely agree with you here. but, in hte specific case of the US
> auto industry - people are not buying garbage in the numbers that they
> used to, as they have better quality alternatives. in sum,
> F and GM is losing the repeat customer due to quality. Like me

Take a look at the most recent JD powers... mercury #2. Since you have so
much faith in such things.

>> Ford and GM are run by marketeers and bean counters. Marketeers are about
>> 'features' and 'price'. (features include such things as performance
>> numbers). Ford however has managed better at mitigating the negative
>> effects than GM has.

> I dont know about that. have you contemplated buying an Explorer
> recently? how about crown vic with cruise control?

Why would I buy a barn on wheels? Are you refering to the _owners_ not
maintaining proper tire pressure? Because that was the root cause. I
wouldn't buy a cop car / senior mobile either... Cruise control fires? is
that what you are refering to? Did you know that japanese cars have
caught fire too... due to various odd circumstances, design flaws, etc?
The media in the USA will report the dramatic problems with the big
three's cars on the network TV news. You want to read about a japanese
model that has a problem with fires, you might find it as a tiny blurb in
Autoweek.

> i do not really understand your phrase, but it seems that we agree that
> Japanese products are better than US

There are a lot of different things that go into 'better'. I would say
that japanese corporations are much more product focused as a rule. The
corporate culture is often reflected in the products, but that is not
enough to blindly choose the product based on the nationality of the
company.

Ford and GM can produce good cars when they decide to be product focused.
For instance, there is one GM car I would consider, the corvette. If I
needed a 4 door sedan, the GTO (as it is from the more product focused
holden division). These cars didn't go through the same process as say a
new fwd monte carlo.... Mustang has its faults, but they are easily
corrected with aftermarket parts. Buying something much more expensive
from a japanese make is an option, however a FWD car at the same price
point isn't.

wrote:
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> > Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > If the 'seccetaries' dont buy it, it will fail AGAIN for the same reason!
> >
> > I completely agree. GM should spend 95% of its design effort toward
> > making the base model competitive with the base Mustang and some of the
> > sporty foreign models. It's easy to make a car fast but not so easy to
> > make it desirable to the masses.
>
> I have seen that 100,000/yr number also, and there is no way they can
> hit it, year after year after year. To sell that many cars requires a
> plain vanilla, lowest common denominator approach. The Crapmaro
> concept misses that target for at least two reasons -- the styling is
> ridiculously cartoonish, and it sits too low for comfortable use as a
> daily driver by big fat Americans (male AND female). At the very least
> Chevy should buy a Mustang and take a tape measure to it and copy, to
> the 1/4 inch, every important dimension.
>
> 180 Out

How low is it? I had a 1979 Z28 and getting in wasn't so bad but
getting out was a real pain.

BR.

wrote:

>
> wrote:
>> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

To sell that many cars requires
>> a plain vanilla, lowest common denominator approach. The Crapmaro
>> concept misses that target for at least two reasons -- the styling is
>> ridiculously cartoonish, and it sits too low for comfortable use as a
>> daily driver by big fat Americans (male AND female). At the very
>> least Chevy should buy a Mustang and take a tape measure to it and
>> copy, to the 1/4 inch, every important dimension.
>>
>> 180 Out
>
> How low is it? I had a 1979 Z28 and getting in wasn't so bad but
> getting out was a real pain.

Too bad for some of us you cant get out of them the same way you can get
in..
"Fall in, fall out"



--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!